Mr Bump?

munglespoon

There seems to be separate rules for separate people about who can 'bump' a thread more than a few days old, and who cannot. Of course, I am not referring to any specific, identifiable act of education, I am merely making an observation that I would appreciate others giving their views on.

harrrrrry

munglespoon

Generally, threads should not be bumped without adding meaningful new information.

isabel1066

munglespoon where is this GD

frenchielove

munglespoon the only time I have ever done this is when someone is asking for help/advice and the post has got lost amongst all the others which is a shame

munglespoon

harrrrrry Generally, threads should not be bumped without adding meaningful new information.

One would have thought so, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

jeremylalou I haven't noticed

Then why comment?

i_am_sy

It's pretty common for people not to look at time stamps it seems. Personally even if there's new information to add it's normally better to start a new thread, than being up a zombie thread where some of the people interacting are no longer here.

I've seen a few pop up on the "latest" view on the hub, gone to reply and noticed the OP was from a significant time ago, I just leave it and find something else to do instead.

matthewhill1996

interesting

harrrrrry

Where thread containing obsolete information in the opening post has been revived, its reasonable to ask an educator to close the thread. They normally will do so, because otherwise the thread will quickly get clogged with members commenting "we're already able to do that" without noticing that they're replying to a message that's a couple of years old.

But that's different from somebody merely bumping the thread for no reason, which is what I assumed from the opening post.

dartgirl

frenchielove 👍️

sasha_t

Different rules for different people it seems. Not just where bumping threads are concerned either.

jeremylalou

I haven't noticed

peterhall0012

The rules are the same for everybody

johnrooney80

Isn't it encouraged to repost ( revive ) old threads if your new post in along same lines as already there
Saves the ' there's already a thread here' being told to you. So better to search and Bump

harrrrrry

johnrooney80 Isn't it encouraged to repost ( revive ) old threads if your new post in along same lines as already there

On other forums -- often yes, though those forums will generally automatically make a thread that has had no contributions for a while in order to prevent older threads from being bumped.

But on giffgaff:

in Help there's a very strong requirement to never, ever, hijack somebody else's thread. Help threads are very specifically for the benefit of the Original Poster and any replies must be to help that member and strictly no diversion from that. If somebody posts a supplementary question on a thread that has a Best Answer, it's likely nobody will see it. And if somebody posts a supplementary question on somebody else's help thread, it's important to flag it as Off Topic so that an educator can split it to a thread of its own. Even if, indeed esecially if, the hijack begins "I have the same problem". Almost always, its a different problem. Help works most efficiently when the only problem in the thread is that in the Opening Post
in contribute ... maybe it's not so clear cut. But I'd say if the opening post is more than 6 months old, even if it has recent replies, you should be prepared to read the whole thread from beginning to end and make sure you're not bumping obsolete information. For example, if a thread talks about unlimited data or gigabags, then its probably time that thread was archived and a new one started. Also check that you're contributing something new and not regurgitating something that's already been mentioned.

munglespoon

johnrooney80 Isn't it encouraged to repost ( revive ) old threads if your new post in along same lines as already there

That is what the rules say, but is not what the educators promote us to do.

johnrooney80

Duly noted harrrrrry
Thought just meant G.D as whole..